Affirmative Action

-->

I might as well weigh in on how I feel about this so-called affirmative action case. (In the spirit of full disclosure I should point out that I am a graduate of the University of Michigan, although it was during the Pleistocene Era when points were not awarded according to race.)

Much has been said about the desirability of achieving "diversity" on campus. President Bush has himself, I think, expressed that desire. However, much has also been said about the point system that U of M uses in achieving that "desired result." Critics have said that if you award 20 points (out of the necessary 100) to someone merely for being born with black skin, that is racial discrimination against someone born with white skin. In other words, it is unconstitutional.

Never mind for now that legacy students get 4 points for their being born into a family of alumni.

And, although it isn't quite the same thing, talented athletes are (in effect) awarded the entire 100 points if they are All-State high school stars in basketball or football.

That's another discussion for another time.

For now, the discussion seems to be focusing on "race-neutral" solutions to the problem of achieving more diversity on campus.

For example, the President points to the California, Texas and Florida solutions are "race neutral" solutions (take the top X% of students from ALL high schools and guarantee them a place in college).

It would seem to be the next best thing to the present system at U-M. Perhaps you even favor it. I don't know.

But who are we kidding? It is still a system that founders on the issue of race. Therefore, some would say it, too, is a flawed system.

Why?

It is still a quota system.

In other words...

...A certain number of qualified students at a better school will be displaced by that number of less qualified students from a worse school.

And the unavoidable implication is that the more qualified students were white and the less qualified students were black.

So we're back to where we were before.

The plan is race-neutral. Yes. But it isn't any more fair than the other plans we've discussed, in my opinion.

It is an unavoidable fact: you can't discuss this issue of college admissions without dealing with the history of race in this country.

You can call it diversity or anything else you want; but when the concept is to increase the representation of "under-represented minorities" ,i.e., blacks and Native Americans, it ends up being a discussion about race.

Here's the thing: Most thinking people, if they considered the question carefully, would probably agree that 350 years of "racial discrimination" isn't going to be erased by 40 years of civil rights legislation and affirmative action.

The odd thing is, many of those people would argue for MORE intervention, and many would argue for LESS intervention. Or more to the point, they would argue for the ending of ALL intervention NOW.

The latter group throws up their hands and says "No matter how hard we tried, government edicts can't change people's minds. In fact, it is unconstitutional! Therefore, Government has failed. Toss out the rascals."

No. I think that is a flawed observation.

To me, the crux of the debate is two-fold:

1. How to best finish the job of righting the historical wrongs and

2. How to craft an exit strategy that allows us to say finally "We have done the right thing and now it's time to close the book on the effort."

We do both in a spirit of fairness to all parties involved, so we can have justice and then move on with our lives and move on as a nation together into the future.

As always, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.